)> Priority-postponed:
)>
)> * No fix expected for at least two years.
)
)I don't actually see the point of this, given that I can find open high
)priority issues almost 5 years old. Think we might as well drop it.
)
-1

No. I think it's good to keep issues 'postponed' than closed, even if they
are old. Someone someday will come and look at this, as tastes change and
developers have specific requirements or just a plain old challenge.

In the Bugzilla-driven world I sometimes work in we have a 'WONTFIX'
statement which we use for enhancements that we never intend to implement
or for issues that are not going to be fixed in the current release of our
code but no longer exist as an issue in the newer code base (i.e. the
feature is deprecated for good). That are the only two cases we ever drop
issues (or if the issue suddenly goes away when someone revisits it after
a number of iterations of the software).

If we just close/drop the tracker issue I assume it goes off the radar and
so we lose it altogether which I don't think is a good idea.

It's not a big deal for me, but I think that simply leaving them as open
issues works just as well.

The point of the tracker is not necessarily to get it to 0 (after all if
we all sat down and thought hard we could come up with dozens if not
hundreds of enhancements that are not bugs) but that doesn't detract from
the project at all.

Maybe some people get despondent when they see a rise of 200% in 'open'
tracker issues, not me I'd say a rising and falling (and rising again)
tracker rate shows a *healthy* interest in a software project and a
healthy development base.